"The back panel paint was applied on the line between ovens 2 and 3. The paint was the same paint used on the rockers. The gloss difference was a technical result of the temperature differences within the last reflow oven. The first being where the upper portions of the body were exposed to more consistent heat than the rockers and the reflow process was always more glossy in those areas".

"If there was a temperature difference in plant say a summer day- the body was already hot going into the oven - warm to the touch- as opposed to a winter day where the body would be cool to the touch. All of these factors played into the final reflow outcome"

"Cars built in cooler conditions in plant probably were less prone to high gloss where cars that cycled into the oven on a hot day had better and more consistent reflow due to the oven getting a fairly warm body to start with"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is my hope that this will put this issue to bed once and for all.

The above is an excerpt of an interview from 6 years ago from the paint Department supervisor who was actually there and can prove he was there. His name appears on the 1969 personnel listing at Norwood as a Fisher Body employee in paint. In addition He supervised the man in the picture below.

My Guess...

Cars built in the summer glossyCars built in the winter less glossySpring and Fall split the gloss %

The quote coupled with the picture on the assembly line leads me to believe what he said was factual at least about the rockers and the tail panel being shot with the same paint. I never argued that point though... Whether it left the factory as a higher gloss or not doesn't matter much to me on my own build. Mine will definitely be closer to satin if that's what the 68 in the print ad is considered. Call it a day two mod if you must lol

The argument that the temperature differences at different periods of the year (going into the reflow process) being what affected the gloss also made a lot of sense... Personally I doubt very seriously that the specific percentages of gloss level were held to a high tolerance in the plants.

You can't use any of GMs print ads as being technically correct for anything, they were touched up and or made up by the ads designers. Look at the perimeter of that 68s tail panel, it has a body color pin stripe running around it , and the trunklid emblem is way to high up on the trunklid. Half that car has been modified by the artists, But yes the rocker and tail panel paint is the same physical paint from the same gun, and its relative glossiness or not has nothing to do with a few degrees of factory air temperature. There was probably not much concern given to the level of shine or glossiness of this blackout treatment, If there was a requirement for a particular level of gloss and the paint shops couldn't account for variations in humidity, temperatures and any variations in the drying oven temperatures then they probably wouldn't have a job for very long

At least for 67 and 68 my opinion is they were satin. That is my recollection and it agrees with most others. Not gloss and not flat. As to what degree, well that is subjective.

In 2009 when I redid the rear panel blackout on my car (this car has been repainted at least 3 times since new and at least the last time they did not paint the back panel black) we tested some different levels of satin. The painter, who started painting in the 60s - and he knew what he was doing, agreed based on his experience that satin was correct.

For 69, I am not quite as sure.

I do agree different degrees of gloss or flatness could have occurred, more likely due to mixing though, and not due to temperature differences. But I will try to check with a couple of old painters that I know. Both have over 50 years experience.

When Ed checked with Jim Mattison, I thought that was very important to note.